English courts have clarified the habitual residence rule for divorce petitions, observes Holly Sautelle-Smith
The recent case of V v V [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 210 (May) offers a further discussion and clarification of the concepts of residence and habitual residence under Art 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II Revised).
Background to V v V
The wife had been brought up in Brazil but attended schools in the US and Switzerland. She then spent periods of time in Paris, London and New York before meeting the husband in 2001 in St Tropez. The husband is a member of a Greek shipping family and has also travelled the world extensively throughout his life.
The wife issued her petition in England on 1 April 2011. The stated basis for jurisdiction was indent 5 of Art 3(1)(a) of Brussels II Revised: “In matters relating to divorce…jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the member state…in whose territory…the applicant is habitually
